"Zeitgeist" Online Movie: Part One

NOTE: I respond to all of the major claims of Part I of the online film "Zeitgeist" in this critical review. Links to these various claims are located in the column on the right side of this page.

“There is nothing new under the sun.” The narrator’s methodology is considerably outdated among scholars. The claim that Christianity was influenced by pagan religious beliefs, including astrology, is nothing new. These claims are rooted in the “history of religions school,” which emerged in the second half of the nineteenth century. However, by the mid-twentieth century, this method had been greatly refuted—even non-Christian scholars opposed this perspective. I highly recommend that the reader consult chapter 16 of Reinventing Jesus: What the DA VINCI CODE and Other Novel Speculations Don’t Tell You (2006) to obtain an understanding of many logical fallacies associated with holding the “history of religions” view. “Some Notes on Alleged Parallels Between Christianity and Pagan Religions, And, A Proof that Winston Churchill Did Not Exist!,” by J.P. Holding also provides an excellent overview of this issue.

Yet, atheist web sites and books, along with New Age web sites and books, frequently regurgitate these ideas.

In the case of Part I of “Zeitgeist,” the majority of its source material is derived from the New Age author, Acharya S,’ book, The Christ Conspiracy. The film’s producer even writes the following on the source page for Part I: “Special thanks to Acharya S for her consultation for this section.” Acharya S’ real name is D.M. Murdock. I will endnote examples of how the narrator draws from material contained in the corresponding pages of The Christ Conspiracy. One can find book reviews of The Christ Conspiracy at Answering Acharya S and at Acharya S: Sample Points. Unfortunately, the narrator rarely quotes from primary sources. An example of a primary source would be samples of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, inscriptions on pottery, religious texts, etc. The Christ Conspiracy, however, is a secondary source and Acharya S fails to identify the primary sources that she relies on.

Lastly, just about all of the claims made in Part I have all been addressed by scholars and Christian apologists previously.